With a second Trump administration now a reality, the urgency of the present moment is undeniable. Millions of people need access to contraception, abortion, family-building support, and reproductive health care free from racial, economic, and gender bias—right now. At the same time, the movement cannot afford to focus solely on short-term defense. We’re committed to doing the work needed to develop lasting, long-term solutions and strategies, no matter how long it takes.
We sat down with Center Executive Director Melissa Goodman to learn more about how CRHLP is approaching the current moment and insight into the key battles we are facing.
|
|
|
Interviewee: Amanda Barrow, CRHLP Senior Staff Attorney
|
| Interviewer: Kelsey Padilla, Program & Communication Coordinator
|
|
|
Q: In light of the current political landscape under President Trump, how is CRHLP balancing evolving immediate priorities with its long-term vision?
A: Our Center’s most unique value-add to the movement is to do some of the things that day-to-day advocates don’t have time and space to do. Like producing and creating spaces for long-term strategy and research work to build the legal and policy innovations we need to win lasting reproductive rights and justice in this country. So, we’re reserving a big chunk of our time (approximately 70%) for building for the future, releasing analysis and scholarship, having constitutional law strategy convenings to develop new legal theories, evaluating promising long-term policy solutions, and training the next generation of advocates. Then, with about 30% of our time, we're providing immediate support to advocates, providers, and policymakers in the form of matching people to legal representation through our pro bono legal network; timely analysis and research; 1:1 technical assistance; trainings and webinars on urgent developments; and regular virtual information sharing convenings that bring people across different disciplines and sectors of the movement together to regularly talk.
Q: What specific legal or policy threats are you most concerned about in this moment? Are there particular attacks on reproductive rights that require heightened vigilance?
A: There are so many, and reactive fighting alone will not be enough. We have to have a better alternative vision and still work to affirmatively make people’s lives better – in terms of economic security, health care, and justice. We will do some of that through fighting back federal changes but also continuing to create and protect state and local innovations that actually enhance reproductive justice, economic prosperity, and freedom. Here's what I think we must be most vigilant and active in fighting:
|
-
The coming effort to get rid of the main abortion medication mifepristone entirely or make it illegal to mail or obtain it via telehealth abortion medications, and the fear anti-abortion forces are creating through new prosecutions and lawsuits against health care providers, parents who help their kids get abortions, and patients. As we discussed in our analysis before the election, this is how they are going to try to practically ban abortion everywhere in the country. States that ban abortion have also become more aggressive since the election, and we’ve seen civil suits and even criminal charges brought against doctors prescribing abortion medications and even a mother who allegedly helped her teen get an abortion. Many states have introduced new bills this year to criminalize people who decide to have an abortion. There is a looming court battle coming soon about the fate of shield laws. This is all meant to instill fear and chill people from seeking care, from providing care, or helping people get care.
-
The rewriting of law and policy to enforce rigid and “traditional” views of gender and gender stereotypes to put women back in “their place” as wife and mother, to punish nonconformity with gender stereotypes, to violently erase the existence of transgender and non-binary people. The Trump administration’s brutal attack on transgender people is largely about policing gender non-conformity and defining for all what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman. That’s the core of laws, policies, and cultural norms that still harm and hold back women too.
-
The early ways they are going to work to ban more needed and popular reproductive health care like contraception and IVF. In our pre-election analysis, we explained this would happen through defining embryos as legal people and also reclassifying some kinds of popular contraception as abortion. One of the Trump administration’s very first Executive Orders made it a point to define life as beginning at conception (the foundation of how you give embryos born people legal status), and we increasingly see states experimenting with the contraception reclassification strategy.
-
The financial gutting of health care, research, and government programs and services for low-income people, and the bias-based erasure of knowledge, people, and equity they are trying to accomplish while doing it. Slashing government departments, budgets, and government programs is a way to restrict reproductive health, rights, and justice. Protecting Medicaid is top of mind. Flagging and stopping research that relates to a dizzying array of topics – from racial disparities, women, LGBTQ people, disabled people, Indigenous people, social justice, equity, and inequality to name just a few from a shocking list of words that can get a National Science Foundation award or application pulled and defunded.
|
-
The attacks on who gets to even have families or be with their families, right now aimed at immigrants and transgender people, but soon coming to attack family building and family formation in other ways. Project 2025’s vision of what family means is clearly stated to be a working father, stay-at-home mother, and children. The administration's goal is to separate millions of families through deportation and immigration detention. Making embryos “people” will cut to the heart of in vitro fertilization standard practice. LGBTQ families do not fit the vision either.
|
Q: For those feeling disheartened by these attacks, what strategies or lessons from past advocacy efforts give you hope? What role can everyday people—whether lawyers, healthcare providers, or advocates—play in supporting reproductive rights right now?
A: This is not a hopeless moment. People are coming together. They are strategizing. They are acting. We have individual and collective power, we’re just made to feel powerless. I liked Ezra Klein’s recent exhortation that the most important thing is that we don’t believe Trump’s claims that he has the power of a King. We may not all be marching immediately like in 2016 (though many – especially young people and those fighting for immigrant justice and families are). The courts are, and will continue to be, a real check. The number of lawsuits already filed to stop illegal federal action is dizzying, and judges in many cases are issuing restraining orders (temporary and permanent) to check executive branch overreach and what is being done to demolish government structures, norms, rights, and justice. The courts are not dead, and they are still an important avenue to stop or prevent the worst abuses. Will all challenges succeed? No. But a lot will, and even more will throw important sand in the gears of the speedy shock and awe campaign that is intentionally being used to stun us into fear, silence, and compliance. Do we have an extremely political and ideologically motivated Supreme Court majority that may uphold a lot of Trump policies and actions? Yes. But these court cases force changes and evolutions along the way and also fuel activism and narrative change. Plus, the Supreme Court hears very few cases each year and cannot take up every issue. The lower courts will often be a last word. Finally, many of the state Attorneys General are standing up for values that are contrary to what the Trump administration is trying to impose. A fight is happening. Finally, I believe in us and the power of community. We can take care of each other. We can support each other, and we can act and speak out for each other.
|
Register now for the second webinar in our pharmacist-prescribed contraception series, Insurance and Medicaid Coverage, Reimbursement, and Billing for Pharmacist-Prescribed Contraception happening on March 3rd at 12 PM PT. This webinar moderated discussion that will explore the evolving role of pharmacists in expanding access to contraception, with insights from leaders in Arkansas and Washington
|
Join CRHLP for a thought-provoking public panel in partnership with Yale Law School’s Program for the Study of Reproductive Justice and Temple University Beasley School of Law, Resistance and Reimagining: Perspectives on Reproductive and Gender Justice from the Academy, Advocacy, and Public Service. Register now to attend in person or virtually: https://bit.ly/March6thRSVP
|
This week, CRHLP staff attorney Cathren Cohen and Research Data Analyst Neko Michelle Castleberry hosted a workshop for UCLA HEART and Sexperts's Sex Week 2025. This workshop offered students and the public perspective on the future of reproductive rights under the Trump Administration.
|
Are you passionate about reproductive health care and reproductive justice? Do you want to explore legal pathways for rebuilding reproductive rights and contribute to meaningful research and policy work? We are seeking applications for summer law fellows for Summer 2025.
Summer fellows will have the opportunity to contribute to our legal and interdisciplinary work, including conducting legal and policy research and analysis, contributing to empirical research, and supporting projects and convenings to help develop new legal theories to protect reproductive rights and justice
These positions are open to rising 2L, 3L, and LLM law students. Please submit a resume, cover letter, and law school transcript to crhlp@law.ucla.edu. Priority consideration will be given to students that apply by February 28, 2025. Funding is available and will be discussed during the interview process. Learn more here: https://bit.ly/CRHLPSummerFellows
|
Illustration credit: Shutterstock
|
Two new companion studies published in JAMA this week provide insight into the effect abortion bans are having on number of births and infant mortality. The first found that between 2021 and 2023, states with total or six-week abortion bans saw a 1.7% increase in births, or about 22,000 more births than would have been expected before abortion bans were in place. The increases in births were most pronounced among racially minoritized people, younger individuals, and those in southern states. The second study found a 6% rise in infant mortality during the same time period, leading to approximately 500 additional deaths. Black infants and babies with congenital anomalies were overrepresented among newborn deaths, with mortality rates for black infants rising 11%. This increase underscores the harmful health consequences of abortion bans on already vulnerable populations.
|
|
|
Photo credit: AP Photo/David Erickson
|
A Texas judge has ordered Dr. Margaret Carpenter, a New York-based doctor and abortion provider, to cease prescribing abortion medication to Texas residents, and to pay a $100,000 fine for violating Texas law. The ruling marks the latest step in a legal confrontation between Texas' strict abortion laws and New York's shield law, which protects abortion providers from out-of-state legal action. The order was issued as a “default judgment,” based on the state’s allegations that Dr. Carpenter provided abortion pills to a woman in Texas in violation of the state’s ban on abortion. A default judgment can occur when a party to a legal proceeding does not appear in court or respond to a lawsuit against them. Because Texas cannot force Dr. Carpenter to appear in its state courts, the impact of the default judgment or how Texas might seek to enforce it remains to be seen. Government leaders in New York have vowed to fiercely defend NY providers and NY’s shield laws. To learn more about shield laws, view interactive shield law maps, and read in-depth analyses and information about shield laws across the US, visit our shield state law guide.
|
Photo credit: Tracy Glantz/The State/TNS
|
The South Carolina Supreme Court heard arguments this week on the state’s abortion ban, which prohibits abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected. The case stems from a lawsuit which argues the law’s ambiguity makes it difficult for doctors to provide care. Meanwhile, a group of South Carolina doctors is challenging the law on religious grounds, arguing that its exceptions are vague and violate their deeply held religious beliefs because they compel them to withhold care when their religion and conscience dictate, they provide needed care.
|
With so much going on in the world of reproductive health, law, and policy, every week we'll share articles, books, and media you might have missed.
|
|
|
Reimagining the future of reproductive health, law, and policy.
UCLA Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy is a think tank and research center created to develop long-term, lasting solutions that advance all aspects of reproductive justice, and address the current national crisis of abortion access.
|
|
|
Manage your preferences | Opt Out using TrueRemove™
Got this as a forward? Sign up to receive our future emails.
View this email online.
|
385 Charles E Young Dr E | Los Angeles, CA 90095 US
|
|
|
This email was sent to .
To continue receiving our emails, add us to your address book.
|
| |
|
|
